Effects of Renal Denervation vs Sham in Resistant Hypertension After Medication Escalation: Prespecified Analysis at 6 Months of the RADIANCE-HTN TRIO Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Although early trials of endovascular renal denervation (RDN) for patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN) reported inconsistent results, ultrasound RDN (uRDN) was found to decrease blood pressure (BP) vs sham at 2 months in patients with RHTN taking stable background medications in the Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN TRIO) trial.

Objectives

To report the prespecified analysis of the persistence of the BP effects and safety of uRDN vs sham at 6 months in conjunction with escalating antihypertensive medications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized, sham-controlled, clinical trial with outcome assessors and patients blinded to treatment assignment, enrolled patients from March 11, 2016, to March 13, 2020. This was an international, multicenter study conducted in the US and Europe. Participants with daytime ambulatory BP of 135/85 mm Hg or higher after 4 weeks of single-pill triple-combination treatment (angiotensin-receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, and thiazide diuretic) with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater were randomly assigned to uRDN or sham with medications unchanged through 2 months. From 2 to 5 months, if monthly home BP was 135/85 mm Hg or higher, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment starting with aldosterone antagonists was initiated under blinding to treatment assignment.

Interventions

uRDN vs sham procedure in conjunction with added medications to target BP control.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Six-month change in medications, change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP, change in home systolic BP adjusted for baseline BP and medications, and safety.

Results

A total of 65 of 69 participants in the uRDN group and 64 of 67 participants in the sham group (mean [SD] age, 52.4 [8.3] years; 104 male [80.6%]) with a mean (SD) eGFR of 81.5 (22.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 had 6-month daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Fewer medications were added in the uRDN group (mean [SD], 0.7 [1.0] medications) vs sham (mean [SD], 1.1 [1.1] medications; P = .045) and fewer patients in the uRDN group received aldosterone antagonists at 6 months (26 of 65 [40.0%] vs 39 of 64 [60.9%]; P = .02). Despite less intensive standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, mean (SD) daytime ambulatory BP at 6 months was 138.3 (15.1) mm Hg with uRDN vs 139.0 (14.3) mm Hg with sham (additional decreases of -2.4 [16.6] vs -7.0 [16.7] mm Hg from month 2, respectively), whereas home SBP was lowered to a greater extent with uRDN by 4.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5-8.1 mm Hg; P = .03) in a mixed model adjusting for baseline and number of medications. Adverse events were infrequent and similar between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, in patients with RHTN initially randomly assigned to uRDN or a sham procedure and who had persistent elevation of BP at 2 months after the procedure, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment escalation resulted in similar BP reduction in both groups at 6 months, with fewer additional medications required in the uRDN group.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426.

Six-Month Results of Treatment-Blinded Medication Titration for Hypertension Control After Randomization to Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation or a Sham Procedure in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO Trial

BACKGROUND

The multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, sham-controlled RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial (A Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension) demonstrated a 6.3 mm Hg greater reduction in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (BP) at 2 months by endovascular ultrasound renal denervation (RDN) compared with a sham procedure among patients not treated with antihypertensive medications. We report 6-month results after the addition of a recommended standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment to the randomized endovascular procedure under continued blinding to initial treatment.

METHODS

Patients with a daytime ambulatory BP ≥135/85 mm Hg and <170/105 mm Hg after a 4-week discontinuation of up to 2 antihypertensive medications, and a suitable renal artery anatomy, were randomized to RDN (n=74) or sham (n=72). Patients were to remain off antihypertensive medications throughout the first 2 months of follow-up unless safety BP criteria were exceeded. Between 2 and 5 months, if monthly measured home BP was ≥135/85 mm Hg, a standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment was recommended consisting of the sequential addition of amlodipine (5 mg/d), a standard dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg/d), followed by the sequential uptitration of hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg/d) and amlodipine (10 mg/d). Outcomes included the 6-month (1) change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP adjusted for medications and baseline systolic BP, (2) medication burden, and (3) safety.

RESULTS

A total of 69/74 RDN patients and 71/72 sham patients completed the 6-month ambulatory BP measurement. At 6 months, 65.2% of patients in the RDN group were treated with the standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment versus 84.5% in the sham group (P=0.008), and the average number of antihypertensive medications and defined daily dose were less in the RDN group than in the sham group (0.9±0.9 versus 1.3±0.9, P=0.010 and 1.4±1.5 versus 2.0±1.8, P=0.018; respectively). Despite less intensive standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, RDN reduced daytime ambulatory systolic BP to a greater extent than sham (-18.1±12.2 versus -15.6±13.2 mm Hg, respectively; difference adjusted for baseline BP and number of medications: -4.3 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval, -7.9 to -0.6, P=0.024). There were no major adverse events in either group through 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The BP-lowering effect of endovascular ultrasound RDN was maintained at 6 months with less prescribed antihypertensive medications compared with a sham control.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. Unique identifier: NCT02649426.

Cost analysis of early extubation after coronary bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Although early extubation after coronary bypass surgery has been shown to reduce length of stay, a systematic cost analysis of its economic benefit has not been reported, and previous studies have used hospital charges that are typically confused with actual costs.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 690 patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery during a 24-month period were studied to determine the effect of early extubation, defined as removal of the endotracheal tube within 8 hours of arrival to the intensive care unit, on length of stay and hospital costs. Patients in group 2 (n = 362) who underwent coronary bypass surgery in 1995, subsequent to the initiation of an early extubation protocol, were compared with those in group 1 (n = 328) operated on in 1994, before implementation of early extubation. To reflect true hospital resource consumption, only costs (not charges) directly related to patient health core (variable direct cost) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics such as age, gender, previous myocardial infarctions, ejection fraction, reoperations, diabetes, and left main stenosis were similar in both groups. Operative mortality for the entire group was 3.3% and did not differ between the two groups; the incidence of serious morbidity was 10.9% for the entire group. Early extubation was accomplished in 38% of patients in group 2 versus 3% in group 1 (p < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay declined from 9.4 days to 7.7 days (p < 0.01). This was accompanied by a significant (p = 0.001) reduction in variable direct cost per case.

CONCLUSIONS

Early extubation after coronary bypass surgery is an effective strategy of reducing length of stay and does not appear to impact on either morbidity or mortality. An additional benefit is significant cost savings realized through accelerated recovery and control of resource use.